The use of the deprecated transfer() function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail when:
The claimer smart contract does not implement a payable function.
The claimer smart contract does implement a payable fallback which uses more than 2300 gas unit.
The claimer smart contract implements a payable fallback function that needs less than 2300 gas units but is called through proxy, raising the call’s gas usage above 2300.
Additionally, using higher than 2300 gas might be mandatory for some multisig wallets.
re1ro
commented
2 years ago
Lines of code
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/xc20/contracts/XC20Wrapper.sol#L63
Vulnerability details
Impact
The use of the deprecated transfer() function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail when:
The claimer smart contract does not implement a payable function. The claimer smart contract does implement a payable fallback which uses more than 2300 gas unit. The claimer smart contract implements a payable fallback function that needs less than 2300 gas units but is called through proxy, raising the call’s gas usage above 2300.
Additionally, using higher than 2300 gas might be mandatory for some multisig wallets.
Proof of Concept
Here is a link to a report of before, where everything is explained https://code4rena.com/reports/2022-05-bunker#m-03-call-should-be-used-instead-of-transfer-on-an-address-payable
Tools Used
No tools used for that.
Recommended Mitigation Steps
Use call() instead of transfer(), but be sure to implement CEI patterns in CEther and add a global state lock on the comptroller as per Rari.
https://twitter.com/hacxyk/status/1520715516490379264?s=21&t=fnhDkcC3KpE_kJE8eLiE2A https://twitter.com/hacxyk/status/1520715536325218304?s=21&t=fnhDkcC3KpE_kJE8eLiE2A https://twitter.com/hacxyk/status/1520370441705037824?s=21&t=fnhDkcC3KpE_kJE8eLiE2A https://twitter.com/Hacxyk/status/1521949933380595712
THIS HAS REKT COMPOUND FORKS BEFORE!!!